BACKGROUND: Improving the quality and efficiency of chronic disease care is an important goal. OBJECTIVE: To test whether patients with chronic disease working with lay "care guides" would achieve more evidence-based goals than those receiving usual care. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized trial, stratified by clinic and conducted from July 2010 to April 2012. Patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to a care guide or usual care. Patients, providers, and persons assessing outcomes were not blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01156974). SETTING: 6 primary care clinics in Minnesota. PATIENTS: Adults with hypertension, diabetes, or heart failure. INTERVENTION: 2135 patients were given disease-specific information about standard care goals and asked to work toward goals for 1 year, with or without the help of a care guide. Care guides were 12 laypersons who received brief training about these diseases and behavior change. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point for each patient was change in percentage of goals met 1 year after enrollment. RESULTS: The percentage of goals met increased in both the care guide and usual care groups (changes from baseline, 10.0% and 3.9%, respectively). Patients with care guides achieved more goals than usual care patients (82.6% vs. 79.1%; odds ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.47]; P < 0.001); reduced unmet goals by 30.1% compared with 12.6% for usual care patients; and improved more than usual care patients in meeting several individual goals, including not using tobacco. Estimated cost was $286 per patient per year. LIMITATIONS: Providers' usual care may have been influenced by contact with care guides. Last available data in the electronic health record were used to assess end points. CONCLUSION: Adding care guides to the primary care team can improve care for some patients with chronic disease at low cost.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Improving the quality and efficiency of chronic disease care is an important goal. OBJECTIVE: To test whether patients with chronic disease working with lay "care guides" would achieve more evidence-based goals than those receiving usual care. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized trial, stratified by clinic and conducted from July 2010 to April 2012. Patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to a care guide or usual care. Patients, providers, and persons assessing outcomes were not blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01156974). SETTING: 6 primary care clinics in Minnesota. PATIENTS: Adults with hypertension, diabetes, or heart failure. INTERVENTION: 2135 patients were given disease-specific information about standard care goals and asked to work toward goals for 1 year, with or without the help of a care guide. Care guides were 12 laypersons who received brief training about these diseases and behavior change. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point for each patient was change in percentage of goals met 1 year after enrollment. RESULTS: The percentage of goals met increased in both the care guide and usual care groups (changes from baseline, 10.0% and 3.9%, respectively). Patients with care guides achieved more goals than usual care patients (82.6% vs. 79.1%; odds ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.47]; P < 0.001); reduced unmet goals by 30.1% compared with 12.6% for usual care patients; and improved more than usual care patients in meeting several individual goals, including not using tobacco. Estimated cost was $286 per patient per year. LIMITATIONS: Providers' usual care may have been influenced by contact with care guides. Last available data in the electronic health record were used to assess end points. CONCLUSION: Adding care guides to the primary care team can improve care for some patients with chronic disease at low cost.
Authors: Elizabeth A Rogers; Sarah Turcotte Manser; Joan Cleary; Anne M Joseph; Eileen M Harwood; Kathleen T Call Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Shreya Kangovi; Nandita Mitra; David Grande; Hairong Huo; Robyn A Smith; Judith A Long Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Clarissa Hsu; Stephanie Cruz; Hilary Placzek; Michelle Chapdelaine; Sara Levin; Fabiola Gutierrez; Sara Standish; Ian Maki; Mary Carl; Miriam Rosa Orantes; Duffy Newman; Allen Cheadle Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: William M M Levack; Mark Weatherall; E Jean C Hay-Smith; Sarah G Dean; Kathryn McPherson; Richard J Siegert Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-07-20
Authors: William B Borden; Jingyan Wang; Philip Jones; Yuanyuan Tang; Johanna Contreras; Stacie L Daugherty; Nihar R Desai; Salim S Virani; Jason H Wasfy; Thomas M Maddox Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2022-03-11
Authors: John G Lawrenson; Ella Graham-Rowe; Fabiana Lorencatto; Jennifer Burr; Catey Bunce; Jillian J Francis; Patricia Aluko; Stephen Rice; Luke Vale; Tunde Peto; Justin Presseau; Noah Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-01-15